Evaluation of a Video Decision Aid to Reduce Decisional Conflict in Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Decision-Making.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background/objectives
Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) is recommended as a preferred practice for advance care planning with seriously ill patients. Decision aids can assist patients in advance care planning, but there are limited studies on their use for POLST decisions. We hypothesized that after viewing a POLST video, decision aid participants would demonstrate increased knowledge and satisfaction and decreased decisional conflict.Design
Pre-and postintervention with no control group.Setting/participants
Fifty community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older asked to complete a POLST based on a hypothetical condition.Interventions
Video decision aid for Sections A and B of the POLST form.Measurements
Pre- and postintervention participant knowledge, decisional satisfaction, decisional conflict, and acceptability of video decision aid.Results
Use of the video decision aid increased knowledge scores from 11.24 ± 2.77 to 14.32 ± 2.89, P < .001, improved decisional satisfaction 10.14 ± 3.73 to 8.70 ± 3.00, P = .001, and decreased decisional conflict 12 ± 9.42 to 8.15 ± 9.13, P < .001. All participants reported that they were comfortable using the video decision aid, that they would recommend it to others, and that it clarified POLST decisions.Conclusions
Participants endorsed the use of a POLST video decision aid, which increased their knowledge of POLST form options and satisfaction with their decisions, and decreased their decisional conflict in POLST completion. This pilot study provides preliminary support for the use of video decision aids for POLST decision-making. Future research should evaluate a decision aid for the entire POLST form and identify patient preferences for implementing POLST decision aids into clinical practice.
SUBMITTER: Gallegos JV
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7720244 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to develop and assess the effectiveness of a patient decision aid (PDA) to support treatment decision making in Spanish patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who fail to achieve the therapeutic goal with the current disease-modifying antirheumatic treatment strategy.MethodsThe PDA was developed in accordance with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards recommendations. A steering group led the project. Three literature reviews and two focus groups were performed to develop the PDA prototype. To check its comprehensibility, acceptability, and feasibility, alpha-testing was performed using the Decision Support Acceptability Scale (DSAS). Beta-testing was conducted to assess preliminary evidence of PDA efficacy using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) before and after PDA use. Readiness was evaluated using the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS).ResultsThe PDA included (1) a brief description of RA, (2) treatment information, and (3) a values clarification section. Alpha-testing revealed that most patients considered that the information was presented in a good or excellent way and it could help clarify their values and facilitate treatment decision making. Most rheumatologists agreed that the PDA was easy to understand, to use, and allowed them to reach a shared decision. Beta-testing showed that PDA significantly reduced overall patients' decisional conflict [33.2 (DE: 21.4) vs 24.6 (23.5); p?<?0.001] and prepared the patient for decision making [PDMS: 67.5 (21.0)].ConclusionsWe developed a PDA for Spanish patients with moderate-to-severe RA that reduces patients' decisional conflict and increases their readiness for decision making. The use of this PDA in routine clinical practice may improve the quality of the decision-making process and the quality of the choices made.
| S-EPMC6957559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextIt is especially important that patients are well informed when making high-stakes, preference-sensitive decisions like those on the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. However, there is currently no way to easily evaluate whether patients understand key concepts when making these important decisions.ObjectivesTo develop a POLST knowledge survey.MethodsExpert (n = 62) ratings of key POLST facts were used to select items for a POLST knowledge survey. The survey was administered to nursing facility residents (n = 97) and surrogate decision-makers (n = 112). A subset (n = 135) were re-administered the survey after a standardized advance care planning discussion to assess the scale's responsiveness to change.ResultsThe 19-item survey demonstrated adequate reliability (α = 0.72.). Residents' scores (x = 11.4, standard deviation 3.3) were significantly lower than surrogate scores (x = 14.7, standard deviation 2.5) (P < 0.001). Scores for both groups increased significantly after administration of a standardized advance care planning discussion (P < 0.001). Although being a surrogate, age, race, education, cognitive functioning, and health literacy were significantly associated with higher POLST Knowledge Survey scores in univariate analyses, only being a surrogate (P < 0.001) and being white (P = 0.028) remained significantly associated with higher scores in multivariate analyses.ConclusionThe 19-item POLST Knowledge Survey demonstrated adequate reliability and responsiveness to change. Findings suggest the survey could be used to identify knowledge deficits and provide targeted education to ensure adequate understanding of key clinical decisions when completing POLST.
| S-EPMC6857935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBoth patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker.DesignTwo-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision.ParticipantsAddress-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2.Main measuresWe asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences.Key resultsAbout 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = - 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = - 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict.ConclusionsThe need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else's behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful.
| S-EPMC7431116 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend a personalized approach to mammography screening for women in their forties; however, methods to do so are lacking. An evidence-based mammography screening decision aid was developed as an electronic mobile application and evaluated in a before-after study.MethodsThe decision aid (Mammopad) included modules on breast cancer, mammography, risk assessment, and priority setting about screening. Women aged 40-49 years who were patients of rural primary care clinics, had no major risk factors for breast cancer, and no mammography during the previous year were invited to use the decision aid. Twenty women participated in pretesting of the decision aid and 75 additional women completed the before-after study. The primary outcome was decisional conflict measured before and after using Mammopad. Secondary outcomes included decision self-efficacy and intention to begin or continue mammography screening. Differences comparing measures before versus after use were determined using Wilcoxon signed rank tests.ResultsAfter using Mammopad, women reported reduced decisional conflict based on mean Decisional Conflict Scale scores overall (46.33 versus 8.33; Z = -7.225; p < 0.001) and on all subscales (p < 0.001). Women also reported increased mean Decision Self-Efficacy Scale scores (79.67 versus 95.73; Z = 6.816, p < 0.001). Although 19% of women changed their screening intentions, this was not statistically significant.ConclusionsWomen reported less conflict about their decisions for mammography screening, and felt more confident to make decisions after using Mammopad. This approach may help guide women through the decision making process to determine personalized screening choices that are appropriate for them.
| S-EPMC4683542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) often have poor glycemic control on first-line pharmacologic therapy and require treatment intensification. Intensification decisions can be difficult because of many available options and their many benefits and risks. The American Diabetes Association recommends patient-centered, evidence-based tools supporting shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. We developed a patient decision aid (PDA) targeting decisions about treatment intensification for T2DM. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of this PDA for patients with T2DM on metformin who require treatment intensification.MethodsThis study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in 27 US primary care and endocrinology clinics. Subjects were English-speaking adults with T2DM receiving metformin with persistent hyperglycemia who were recommended to consider medication intensification. Subjects were randomized to receive either the PDA or usual care (UC). Main outcome measures were change in knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decisional conflict.ResultsOf 225 subjects enrolled, 114 were randomized to the PDA and 111 to UC. Mean [SD] age was 52 [1] years, time since T2DM diagnosis was 6 [+/-6] years, 45.3% were male, and most (55.5%) were non-Caucasian. Compared to UC, PDA users had significantly larger knowledge gains (35.0% [22.3] vs 9.9% [22.2]; P < 0.0001) and larger improvements in self-efficacy (3.7 [16.7] vs-3.9 [19.2]; P < 0.0001) and decisional conflict (-22.2 [20.6] vs-7.5 [16.6]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThe PDA resulted in substantial and significant improvements in knowledge, decisional conflict and decisional self-efficacy. Decisional conflict scores after PDA use were within the range that correlates with effective decision-making. This PDA has the potential to facilitate shared-decision-making for patients with T2DM.Trial registrationNCT02110979.
| S-EPMC4712511 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether medical orders within Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms reflect patients' preferences for care at the end of life.DesignThis cross-sectional study assessed the agreement between medical orders in POLST forms and the free-form text documentation of an advance care planning conversation performed by an independent researcher during a single episode of hospitalization.Setting and participantsInpatients at a single public university hospital, aged 21 years or older, and for whom one of their attending physicians provided a negative answer to the following question: "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next year?" Data collection occurred between October 2016 and September 2017.MeasuresAgreement between medical orders in POLST forms and the free-form text documentation of an advance care planning conversation was measured by kappa statistics.ResultsSixty-two patients were interviewed. Patients' median (interquartile range) age was 62 (56-70) years, and 21 patients (34%) were women. Overall, in 7 (11%) cases, disagreement in at least 1 medical order for life-sustaining treatment was found between POLST forms and the content of the independent advance care planning conversation. The kappa statistic for cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-1.00]; for level of medical intervention, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81-0.99); and for artificially administered nutrition, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.75-0.98).Conclusions and implicationsThe high level of agreement between medical orders in POLST forms and the documentation in an independent advance care planning conversation offers further support for the POLST paradigm. In addition, the finding that the agreement was not 100% underscores the need to confirm frequently that POLST medical orders accurately reflect patients' current values and preferences of care.
| S-EPMC8393557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectivesMany older persons with chronic illness use Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) to document portable medical orders for emergency care. However, some POLSTs contain combinations of orders that do not translate into a cohesive care plan (eg, cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] without intensive care, or intensive care without antibiotics). This study characterizes the prevalence and predictors of POLSTs with conflicting orders.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingLarge academic health system.ParticipantsA total of 3,123 POLST users with chronic life-limiting illness who died between 2010 and 2015 (mean age = 69.7 years).MeasurementsIn a retrospective review of all POLSTs in participants' electronic health records, we describe the prevalence of POLSTs with conflicting orders for cardiac arrest and medical interventions, and use clustered logistic regression to evaluate potential predictors of conflicting orders. We also examine the prevalence of conflicts between POLST orders for antibiotics and artificial nutrition with orders for cardiac arrest or medical interventions.ResultsAmong 3,924 complete POLSTs belonging to 3,123 decedents, 209 (5.3%) POLSTs contained orders to "attempt CPR" paired with orders for "limited interventions" or "comfort measures only"; 745/3169 (23.5%) POLSTs paired orders to restrict antibiotics with orders to deliver non-comfort-only care; and, 170/3098 (5.5%) POLSTs paired orders to withhold artificial nutrition with orders to deliver CPR or intensive care. Among POLSTs with orders to avoid intensive care, orders to attempt CPR were more likely to be present in POLSTs completed earlier in the patient's illness course (adjusted odds ratio = 1.27 per twofold increase in days from POLST to death; 95% confidence interval = 1.18-1.36; P < .001).ConclusionAlthough most POLSTs are actionable by clinicians, 5% had conflicting orders for cardiac arrest and medical interventions, and 24% had one or more conflicts between orders for cardiac arrest, medical interventions, antibiotics, and artificial nutrition. These conflicting orders make implementation of POLST challenging for clinicians in acute care settings.
| S-EPMC7744421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCompeting health concerns present real obstacles to people living with diabetes and other chronic diseases as well as to their primary care providers. Guideline implementation interventions rarely acknowledge this, leaving both patients and providers feeling overwhelmed by the volume of recommended actions. Interprofessional (IP) shared decision-making (SDM) with the use of decision aids may help to set treatment priorities. We developed an evidence-based SDM intervention for patients with diabetes and other conditions that was framed by the IP-SDM model and followed a user-centered approach. Our objective in the present study is to pilot an IP-SDM and goal-setting toolkit following the Knowledge-to-Action Framework to assess (1) intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and (2) impact on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, health-related quality of life and patient assessment of chronic illness care.Methods/designA two-step, parallel-group, clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted, with the primary goal being to assess intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT. The first step is a provider-directed implementation only; the second (after a 6-month delay) involves both provider- and patient-directed implementation. Half of the clusters will be assigned to receive the IP-SDM toolkit, and the other will be assigned to be mailed a diabetes guidelines summary. Individual interviews with patients, their family members and health care providers will be conducted upon trial completion to explore toolkit use. A secondary purpose of this trial is to gather estimates of the toolkit's impact on decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include diabetes distress, quality of life and chronic illness care, which will be assessed on the basis of patient-completed questionnaires of validated scales at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Multilevel hierarchical regression models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data.DiscussionAn individualized approach to patients with multiple chronic conditions using SDM and goal setting is a desirable strategy for achieving guideline-concordant treatment in a patient-centered fashion. Our pilot trial will provide insights regarding strategies for the routine implementation of such interventions in clinical practice, and it will offer an assessment of the impact of this approach.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015.
| S-EPMC4486130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore patients' and physicians' perspectives on a decision-making conversation for life-sustaining treatment, based on the Danish model of the American Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form.DesignSemi-structured interviews following a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.SettingDanish hospitals, nursing homes, and general practitioners' clinics.SubjectsPatients and physicians.Main outcome measuresQualitative analyses of interview data.FindingsAfter participating in a conversation about life-sustaining treatment using the Danish POLST form, a total of six patients and five physicians representing different settings and age groups participated in an interview about their experience of the process. Within the main research questions, six subthemes were identified: Timing, relatives are key persons, clarifying treatment preferences, documentation across settings, strengthening patient autonomy, and structure influences conversations. Most patients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable but also complicated due to the different levels of knowledge and attending to individual patient needs and medical necessities. Relatives were considered as key persons to ensure the understanding of the treatment trajectory and the ability to advocate for the patient in case of a medical crisis. The majority of participants found that the conversation strengthened patient autonomy.ConclusionPatients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable, especially for strengthening patient autonomy. Relatives were considered key persons. The timing of the conversation and securing sufficient knowledge for shared decision-making were the main perceived challenges.KEY POINTSConversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment are important, but not performed systematically.When planning a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment, the timing of the conversation and the inclusion of relatives are key elements.Decision-making conversations can help patients feel in charge and less alone, and make it easier for health professionals to provide goal-concordant care.Using a model like the Danish POLST form may help to initiate, conduct and structure conversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.
| S-EPMC9090401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is essential to high-quality medical care that life-sustaining treatment orders match the current, values-based preferences of patients or their surrogate decision-makers. It is unknown whether concordance between orders and current preferences is higher when a POLST form is used compared to standard documentation practices.ObjectiveTo assess concordance between existing orders and current preferences for nursing facility residents with and without POLST forms.DesignChart review and interviews.SettingForty Indiana nursing facilities (29 where POLST is used and 11 where POLST is not in use).ParticipantsOne hundred sixty-one residents able to provide consent and 197 surrogate decision-makers of incapacitated residents with and without POLST forms.Main measurementsConcordance was measured by comparing life-sustaining treatment orders in the medical record (e.g., orders about resuscitation, intubation, and hospitalization) with current preferences. Concordance was analyzed using population-averaged binary logistic regression. Inverse probability weighting techniques were used to account for non-response. We hypothesized that concordance would be higher in residents with POLST (n = 275) in comparison to residents without POLST (n = 83).Key resultsConcordance was higher for residents with POLST than without POLST (59.3% versus 34.9%). In a model adjusted for resident, surrogate, and facility characteristics, the odds were 3.05 times higher that residents with POLST had orders for life-sustaining treatment match current preferences in comparison to residents without POLST (OR 3.05 95% CI 1.67-5.58, p < 0.001). No other variables were significantly associated with concordance.ConclusionsNursing facility residents with POLST are significantly more likely than residents without POLST to have concordance between orders in their medical records and current preferences for life-sustaining treatments, increasing the likelihood that their treatment preferences will be known and honored. However, findings indicate further systems change and clinical training are needed to improve POLST concordance.
| S-EPMC7878602 | biostudies-literature